Contents Wilfried van der Will vii Michael Butler Notes on the Contributors x 1 Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 1 Robert Evans 2 Willehalm and Puzzât, Guillelme and Baucent: The Hero and His Horse in Wolfram’s Willehalm and in the Bataille d’Aliscans 13 Nigel Harris 3 Bürger and ‘das schwankende Wort Volk’25 David Hill 4 Moments of Emancipation: The Nineteenth-Century Heroine in German Literature 37 Ruth Whittle 5 ‘Apollo aber schließlich die Sprache des Dionysus’: Harmony or Hegemony in Die Geburt der Tragödie?51 Ronald Speirs 6 Ernst Stadler in Oxford: Addenda, Corrigenda and Two Unpublished Letters 59 Richard Sheppard 7 Historicity and All That: Reflections on Bertolt Brecht’s Die Maßnahme 77 Martin Swales 8 ‘Zwischen den Zeilen?’: The Development of Dolf Sternberger’s Political ‘Sprachkritik’ from the ‘Wörterbuch der Regierung von Papen’ (1932) to ‘Ein guter Ausdruck’ (1937) 86 Bill Dodd 9 The Paradox of Simultaneity: ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung’ in Paul Schallück’s Engelbert Reineke 99 John Klapper 10 Authenticity and the ‘Speaking Other’: Günter Wallraff’s Ganz unten as an Industrial Fiction 110 Rob Burns vi The Challenge of German Culture 11 Grass Parodied: Notes on the Reception of Die Rättin 122 Manfred Durzak 12 East German Literature and the Cold War: The Example of Erich Loest’s Die Westmark fällt weiter 134 Martin Kane 13 Was bleibt Revisited: Christa Wolf and the Fear of Transience 144 Michael Butler 14 High and Low Literature and the German Reading Public 153 Keith Bullivant 15 Reflections on Jewish Culture in Germany since 1945 163 Eva Kolinsky 16 Reflections on German History and Anglo-Saxon Liberalism 175 Günter Minnerup 17 The Social Dynamics of Dictatorship: Re-evaluating the Third Reich and the GDR ‘From the Bottom Up’ 187 Jonathan Grix and Charlie Jeffery 18 Back to the Future: 1968 and the Red–Green Government 199 William E. Paterson Wilfried van der Will: Publications 213 Tabula Gratulatoria 216 1 Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied Robert Evans I The Old High German Hildebrandslied needs little introduction. Comprising sixty-eight lines, some of them incomplete, of alliterative verse, the poem represents the only surviving fragment of a Germanic heroic lay from the Old High German period.1 A narrator recounts how two warriors, Hildebrand and Hadubrand, face each other in single combat as the champions of their respective armies. In accordance with warrior custom, Hildebrand, the older man, asks his opponent about the latter’s parentage. Hadubrand’s answer, however, causes Hildebrand to realize that the man he is about to engage in mortal combat is none other than his own son, the infant whom he had abandoned some thirty years earlier when fleeing into exile with Dietrich, his feudal lord, in order to escape from their deadly enemy Otacher. Hildebrand tries to persuade Hadubrand of this fact and attempts a reconciliation, but Hadubrand will have none of it, claiming that his father is dead and rejecting Hildebrand’s approaches as treacherous. Hildebrand must now decide whether he should unilaterally refuse to fight and thereby betray his lord and army, suffering in consequence a very public loss of honour, or join battle with his own son. Reluctantly he adopts the latter course. The fighting is being described in all its savagery when the text abruptly breaks off, giving no indication as to the outcome of the encounter. 1 2 The Challenge of German Culture One puzzling question raised by the Hildebrandslied appears to have been largely neglected by previous commentators: namely, why is it that Hadubrand makes no attempt to test the veracity of Hildebrand’s claim to be his long-lost father?2 Hadubrand could surely establish once and for all whether there is any truth in the older man’s words by asking him a simple question (or questions) about his mother, Hildebrand’s wife, a question which the stranger standing in front of him could only be expected to answer convincingly if he really were Hadubrand’s father.3 Even if we make the (arguably unwarranted) assumption that Hadubrand’s mother died shortly after his father fled with Dietrich and whilst Hadubrand himself was still a small child,4 there must be something which those who brought Hadubrand up had told him about his mother which he could now use to test whether Hildebrand’s claim has any substance or not.5 Yet Hadubrand does not seek to question Hildebrand in this way. Is this simply because he places no credence in Hildebrand’s claim and hence sees no need to question him about it? Or does he perhaps refrain from questioning Hildebrand because he thinks that there might be some truth in the latter’s claim and would rather not know for certain whether his adversary is indeed his long-lost father? This essay will examine the possible reasons why Hadubrand does not ask Hildebrand a question which could definitively establish for him whether the latter is his father or not. It will seek to explain Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’.6 II Let us begin by exploring what grounds Hadubrand might have for believing that Hildebrand could be his father. First, it is plain that Hildebrand is old enough to be so. We know from the text that Hildebrand had sired a child before fleeing with Dietrich, ‘her furlaet in lante luttila sitten prut in bure, barn unwahsan, arbeo laosa: her raet ostar hina.’ (ll. 20–2) (‘In his homeland he left sitting in his house his young wife and ungrown child, bereft of any inheritance. He rode off to the east.’) and that he has subsequently been in exile for thirty years: Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 3 ‘ih wallota sumaro enti wintro sehstic ur lante,’ (l. 50) (‘For sixty summers and winters I have been wandering outside of my homeland.’) Moreover, that Hildebrand looks his age seems to be supported by the fact that Hadubrand both calls him an ‘alter Hun’ (l. 39) and then refers specifically to his advanced age a couple of lines later: ‘pist also gialtet man, so du ewin inwit fortos.’ (l. 41) (‘You have reached such a great age by continually having engaged in treachery.’) In other words, it is hard to imagine that Hadubrand does not realize that the man standing in front of him is, if nothing else, at least the right sort of age to be his father. Second, Hildebrand’s claim to be Hadubrand’s father is arguably given some substance by the fact that not only is Hildebrand still active as a warrior at his advanced age, but he is also apparently the champion of his army. Hadubrand clearly believes his father to have been an outstanding warrior. This is demonstrated by the glowing terms in which he describes him: ‘her was Otachre ummet tirri, degano dechisto miti Deotrichhe. her was eo folches at ente: imo was eo fehta ti leop: chud was her ... chonnem mannum.’ (ll. 25–8) (‘He was exceedingly hostile towards Otacher, the most loyal of warriors to Dietrich. He was always at the forefront of the army; fighting was always very dear to him. He was known to brave men.’) Encapsulated within these four lines we can see all the essential attributes of a successful Germanic warrior in the Dark Ages: hostility towards one’s enemies (l. 25), loyalty to one’s own leader (l. 26), bravery and a love of fighting (l. 27), renown amongst one’s peers (l. 28). Hadubrand must realize, when Hildebrand first claims to be a close relative, 4 The Challenge of German Culture ‘wettu irmingot [quad Hiltibrant] obana ab hevane, dat du neo dana halt mit sus sippan man dinc ni gileitos ...’ (ll. 30–2) (‘I call almighty God from Heaven above’, said Hildebrand, ‘to witness that you have never engaged such a close kinsman in single combat.’) not only that his opponent is approximately the right age to be his father, but also that this man, still fighting and seemingly still the champion of his army at such an advanced age,7 is likely to have had an exceptionally distinguished and successful military career. Hence he must possess the very same qualities which Hadubrand has attributed to his own long-lost father in lines 25–8. Third, there is geographical evidence which might seem to Hadubrand to support Hildebrand’s claim to be his father. In both line 18 (‘forn her ostar giweit’) and line 22 (‘her raet ostar hina’) we are told by Hadubrand that Hildebrand fled east with Dietrich. When Hildebrand comes to fight his son, he appears to be wearing Hunnish armour and/or trappings: want her do ar arme wuntane bauga, cheisuringu gitan, so imo se der chuning gap, Huneo truhtin: ‘dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu.’ (ll. 33–5)8 (He then unwound from his arm spiral rings made of imperial gold which the king, the lord of the Huns, had given him: ‘I now give you this as a token of friendship.’) This fact is not lost on Hadubrand, who refers to his opponent as an ‘alter Hun’ (l. 39).9 If Hadubrand can recognize Hildebrand’s equipment as being that of a Hun, then he clearly has some knowledge of who the Huns are and therefore where they come from. In other words, Hadubrand is highly likely to have known that the Huns, amongst whom his adversary has clearly spent time, came from the east,10 the same direction in which his father and Dietrich had last been seen heading some thirty years previously. A fourth reason for arguing that Hadubrand may suspect that there is some truth in Hildebrand’s claim concerns the apparent difference in tone between Hadubrand’s statement in line 29 that he does not think that his father is still alive, Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 5 ‘ni waniu ih iu lib habbe ...’ (‘I do not think that he is still alive.’) and his unequivocal assertion in line 44, namely after Hildebrand has claimed kinship (l.